[CPLX]

To an outsider, San Fransisco's policy towards the homeless seems literally insane.

Despite the negative frame of the headline, is this obviously a bad idea? It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.Or if this is a horrible/insensitive/bad idea as stated, what's the smart, thoughtful, and progressive way to change the status quo?

[andlarry]

San Francisco spends $241 million[0] of it's $8.9 billion budget[1] on programs to help the homeless and to help folks avoid becoming homeless (through housing assistance, etc). The 2015 count of homeless people in San Francisco is 7,539[2].

This measure doesn't increase spending on the homeless issue but, honestly, the San Francisco govt has shown the ability to absorb funding increases without noticeable impact in services. This is especially true of homeless services.

My impression is that this measure is born of frustration with the governmental inaction on the homeless problem in SF.

[0] http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record... [1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-budget-increase-aim... [2] http://sfgov.org/lhcb/sites/default/files/2015%20San%20Franc...

[heymijo]

From your [0] link.

"Eight city departments oversee at least 400 contracts to 76 private organizations"

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

I'm curious what happened in New Orleans and the other places referenced that have seen success helping their homeless populations. Knowing even a little bit about systems, layering more complexity (and money) on top of a dysfunctional effort in SF isn't going to meaningfully help.

[andlarry]

Yeah, and those private organizations (mostly non-profits) are very effective at lobbying, so it's hard to terminate contracts to consolidate services.

One thing to clarify is that, because some (~$60 Million in 2015 [3]) goes to housing assistance. The people helped by the budget includes more than 7,539 represented by the point in time count, so the $31K/person number is a bit high.

That said, SF spends a lot of money on homeless and the homeless population hasn't significantly decreased in over a decade.

[3] http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/FileCenter/Documents/56... page 6

[heymijo]

That's a good clarification on the number of people the funds are going to help. Thanks.

[ryandrake]

> That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

The "76 private organizations" that all this money is being funneled toward probably know.

[kafkaesq]

That says a lot about how spending $31,967.10 for every homeless person can amount to, well, no one seems to know.

"As Randy Shaw points out (in an article that has other problems, but gets this absolutely right), almost half the money that the Chron identifies as “homeless” spending is actually money spend on people who are in supportive housing. That’s housing money, not homeless money."

http://48hills.org/2016/02/16/five-myths-about-the-homeless-...

[awinder]

Well considering that NO largely gentrified in the wake of Katrina (essentially the rich literally stealing from the poor), maybe we can look for a better model

[odonnellryan]

Proportionally (to population), I'd say it's less than or around the NYC numbers.

Something really interesting: "Hawaii has the highest homeless rate per capita in the nation, according to federal statistics."

Hawaii the state spends something around 40m a year on the homeless.

But a lot of Hawaii homeless live in tents on the beach!

Just some interesting numbers. I know a lot of the homeless kids in Hawaii also get picked up by school buses as well.

[athenot]

There's an explicit 24h limit before they get kicked out and the entirety of their assets gets confiscated. On the flip side there's no timeline for providing shelter beds and a one-way bus ticket is deemed equivalent.

This is inhumane.

This feels like wealthy people wanting to erase the daily reminders about inequality so that they don't have to think about it.

If the supporters of this measure really cared about homelessness, there would be provisions for actual reintegration into society instead of just a stick. But that costs money and effort.

[lawless123]

"Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds."

I think they just tell them to go to a shelter.

[kafkaesq]

It does mention requiring that people be offered a shelter bed.

But provides no funding (or even specific requirements that would imply funding; e.g. "shelter for 30 days"). Which basically means, in effect "umm, actually we're not really going to provide shelter. We're just going to keep rousting you and rousting you until you head out over to Oakland, or down the Peninsula".

Just that people like Moritz, Conway, Oberndorf, Bogue and Mayer don't want to come out an say it. Even though it's apparently exactly what they want.

[monktastic1]

I'm not able to evaluate whether it's a good idea. But from my experience in the Bay Area, the intention is likely as others have described it: it's inconvenient to have to witness such nasty people, so let's shovel them elsewhere.

It's as insane as it sounds to you.

Edit: what's a progressive, sensitive solution? It starts with something as simple as responding with basic kindness and decency instead of stepping over them on our way to work. Some believe this is pointless or insufficient. It may not work on its own, but it's the only thing that will point us in the right direction.

[CPLX]

With all due respect, that second paragraph seems to be sort of exactly the type of woo woo thinking us asshole NYC types associate with San Franscisco's intractable politics around this problem. It's a genuinely hard problem, but it's hard to see how "be kind" bumper sticker proposals are a serious response.

[monktastic1]

Bumper stickers sound worse than useless.

The point is, human problems are often intractable until the humans in question are treated with some dignity. And it's hard to treat someone with dignity when you are unable to look them in the eye.

[Kalium]

OK. Let's be kind and decent to people. What do you think that looks like, in terms of actual behavior? Instead of just walking past someone panhandling, what does a kind and decent reaction look like? Would you consider looking them in the eye and saying "No" to be kindness and decency? If not, what is - listening to their story? Giving money? Expressing sympathy? How much of a person's day should be devoted to kindness and decency?

Some would characterize the resources devoted to services for the most vulnerable among us as kindness and decency expressed. Which suggests that a progressive, sensitive solution started decades ago. What's the next step?

[monktastic1]

Kindness isn't in the action but the intent. I cannot give you a precise characterization of that intent, but I trust you know it when you experience it. Take a moment and reflect on a moment you experienced deep, profound kindness so that we can be on the same wavelength here.

Kind motivation can be expressed fiercely (as in "tough love"), and conversely, many seemingly-kind actions sprout from an unwholesome place. So I can't tell you what "kind behavior" looks like.

The progressive solutions you see today are the natural result of blossoming intent. _First_ we start learning to see black people, gay people, women, etc. as equal to ourselves, and then our actions, behaviors, and ultimately policies reflect that choice. We're headed in the right direction.

When a behavior is only _ostensibly_ kind -- like when I'm trying to shovel dirty people away under the guise of helping them -- at best I prolong the real problem, and at worst I get an atrocity.

So I cannot give you an actual solution to the homelessness problem, other than to say: motivation matters a lot more than we tech types often consider.

[Kalium]

> Take a moment and reflect on a moment you experienced deep, profound kindness so that we can be on theh same wavelength here.

OK. Focused. Right here with you.

> The progressive solutions you see today are the natural result of blossoming intent.

The progressive solutions I see today look like kindness and decency unmoored from any notion of efficiency. There's no concern for what actually advances the goals we purport to care about with kindness and decency. There's just actions that leave us feeling that we've seen the homeless as equal people and thought kind things about them and expressed this with large dollops of cash and social tolerance.

Given that this has been going on for decades, I harbor a seed of doubt that this blossoming intent is going to manifest as effective policy in the near future. I find myself thinking that warm fuzzies are great, but helping people is better.

> When a behavior is only _ostensibly_ kind -- like when I'm trying to shovel dirty people away under the guise of helping them -- at best I prolong the real problem, and at worst I get an atrocity.

Prolonging the problem, solving the problem, and causing atrocities are all things that can result from actions. They are things that can result from actions rooted in cruelty and from actions rooted in kindness alike. Mao starved millions of people while genuinely trying to help them.

Thank you for trying. You have helped me understand why SF's policies are so completely broken - they're created and executed by people whose only real measurement is purity of motivation and for whom actually helping people is largely irrelevant.

[gadders]

Homelessness is an industry in SF. Lots of livelihoods seem to rely on there being a problem:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/sidewalks-san-francisco-133...